2013 BMW M5 First Test

A Bigger Bang: Latest Sedan Takes A Big Step Forward

In the beginning, there was nothing. Then there was a big bang. At the time, it wasn't called the Big Bang, as it was the very first bang, so there were no other bangs to compare it with. Eventually, life evolved far enough to create everything from spatulas to literature, and the original M5 was born. The motorsport version of the e28 5 Series of 1985 was conceived to deliver sports car-like performance with the useability of a four-door sedan. As with that original bang, we didn't have much to compare it with at the time, and it was easy to call it the best BMW performance sedan ever.With each generation, BMW continued to add power, first with a bigger inline six-cylinder, then moving up to a V-8, and eventually going full F1-inspired crazy with a 5.0-liter V-10. While the M5 continued its march toward super sedan status, it was waving goodbye to daily driving sensibilities. The large-bore, short-stroke, high-revving V-10 didn't have much in the way of low-end grunt, and the adjustable suspension varied from bouncy to crushing. The single-clutch semi-automatic SMG transmission balked around town and slapped from gear to gear when driven hard. It was a great car to drive like a sports car, but wasn't the easiest to live with on a daily basis.

The latest generation of M5 manages to address the daily driving issues ignored by the e60, while simultaneously blowing it out of the water in performance. Enthusiasts may wax poetic about spinning the V-10's tachometer needle past 8000 rpm, but the rush of torque -- 500 lb-ft, to be exact -- created by the twin-turbo 4.4-liter V-8 launches the big car like a cannonball. We recorded a 0-60-mph time for the previous M5 at 4.1 seconds with a quarter-mile time of 12.5 seconds at 115.3 mph. Those seem like fast numbers until you consider the newer car runs to 60 mph in 3.7 seconds and gets through the quarter in 11.9 seconds at 120.3 mph.For comparison's sake, a Porsche Panamera Turbo we tested recently performed these same feats of strength in 3.5 seconds to 60 mph and 11.9 seconds at 114.7 mph through the quarter mile. But all-wheel drive is clearly a big advantage for the Porsche, and its extra 68 lb-ft of torque help the 102-pound-heavier Panamera get out of the hole.

Once the M5's speeds start to rise, the turbos spool and traction becomes less of an issue. The BMW gets from 0 to 100 mph in 8.4 seconds, while it takes the Porsche 8.8 seconds. The disparity in speed at the end of the quarter mile leads us to believe the M5 would keep pulling away at the high end. The Porsche makes a peak 500 hp, while the BMW cranks out a blistering 560 hp. We have tested a Panamera Turbo S rated at 550 hp that bridges the matches the M5's 0-100-mph time, but still lags behind the M5's trap speed, coming in at 118.0 mph. It would seem the BMW is either producing a little more power than rated, or more of it is getting to the ground through two wheels once it's securely hooked up.

Around our figure-eight course, the BMW got nipped by the Panamera Turbo. The M5 turned in a very unsedan-like 24.9 seconds at an average of 0.81 g. The Porsche did it half a second quicker with the same average g. The difference comes down to cornering speeds. The Panamera Turbo can pull a full 1.00 g in lateral acceleration and claws out of corners quicker, while the M5 creates 0.94 g of sideways tug while building higher straight-line g forces.Whether in a straight line or cornering, the M5 drives like a bigger, heavier M3. The car naturally wants to understeer, but can be rotated with careful throttle application. The difference is that the M5's turbo-generated torque isn't as easily controlled as naturally aspirated torque. This may be the only downside when compared with the V-10. While the naturally aspirated engine seemed to have a direct physical connection from the driver's ankle to the car's 10 individual throttle bodies, the turbocharged V-8 is a little more of a game of telephone. Push down on the throttle pedal, feed the engine a bit more air, wait for the turbos to spool, and then get ready to counter steer. The impatient will quickly find themselves facing the wrong direction if they simply pin the throttle and aren't expecting all 500 lb-ft all at once.

On the road, the new M5 is a huge step forward from the previous car. The SMG transmission is gone, replaced by a thoroughly modern twin-clutch seven-speed semi-automatic transmission. The suspension has a greater range of adjustments from the previous car's, and even the steering assist is surprisingly variable. With all knobs and switches set in Economy or Comfort mode, the M5 is similar in mannerisms to a 528. The freeway ride is comfortable; the steering is light by BMW standards; and the transmission jumps to the highest possible fuel-saving gear as quickly as it can.We found it completely livable around town and on the highway. We were even surprised by the amount of amenities BMW has chosen for such a sporting car. If you happen to be lapping the Nuerburgring with the kids in the back seat, they can watch the two monitors hanging off the back of each front seat. How many kids have experienced "Yo Gabba Gabba" at 150 mph? The doors also have a self-closing feature like more luxurious cars in this price range. No need to slam the door; just latch it shut and the car takes it the rest of the way. In fact, if you do slam the door closed, the car gently pops it back out and reseats as if to say, "Here, let me show you how this is done."

Once you have finished oohing and aahing over all this luxury, the transmission, suspension and steering can all be prodded into Sport mode either through buttons on the center console or all at once with the programmable M Drive buttons on the steering wheel. Damping rates are increased; steering requires a bit more muscle; and shifts are held until later in the powerband while snapping gear to gear a little faster. This was our preferred mode around town, as comfort makes the M5 lean a little bit too far toward the apathetic. Sport still isn't perfect. The middle mode overshoots the Goldilocks zone, making every trip to the store a qualifying lap, but at least you aren't holding up traffic in one of the world's fastest sedans. Steering is quick and direct. BMW's typical high caster angle on the front suspension provides plenty of feedback through the steering wheel. Holding the gears a little longer means the engine always wants to go and go fast. The one thing that's exactly right is the suspension, at least for the driver. The stiffer damping rates work with a rigidly mounted rear subframe to give the M5 a buttoned-down feel missing in most sedans.

The last choice for aggression on demand is Sport Plus. Either BMW's home-turf test routes are perfectly smooth, or the engineers wanted to relive past glory of DTM racers bouncing through the air. Even on our smooth Southern California canyon roads, we found the suspension too stiff in the most aggressive state. Small mid-corner bumps unsettle the chassis, and the unsettling turns to near aerobatics when you press hard on the brakes. The steering effort switches from nicely heavy to something your personal trainer would recommend. Even the throttle response and sportiest shift modes are a little too much for anything other than drag racing.If we could make one change it would be the addition of a Sport Minus mode -- something that would give the car a little more throttle response around town and at least some of the character expected in a six-figure performance sedan.Obviously, the slower throttle response and short shifting are used to maximize the benefit of forced induction at the gas pump and in the eyes of the EPA. But on the whole, that's a minor hiccup. From driver feedback to all-out performance, this is probably the best M5 ever.

Elysium- The Australian exchange rate, taxes and shipping are what bring the prices up to that level. As for Cadillac and BMWs pricing in foreign countries, thats normal. When you say "I don't know anyone who likes the looks of Cadillac" what you should be saying is "I don't know anyone who wants a Cadillac badge on their car" I think the Cadillac vomits all over this ^ ugly pig in terms of styling AND personality. I hate BMWs for the record (Ive owned 3) just so you know Im being biased. The new CTS-V is on par with the Bavarian Booger Face. Anyway, this thing is boring. It has boring styling, a boring interior, boring sound and is generally boring to drive unless you're flogging it constantly. But to each their own, I guess. Unless you're motortrend, car and driver or road and track. Then it's BMW, always BMW, no matter what. You could build a car that beats any BMW in every single category and it still wouldn't have "quality materials" or "the right steering feel" the E92 and F30 have garbage steering BTW

You guys should do someresearch first. The Caddy is cheaper because it's an American car. Imports get hit with VAT globallly. The CTS-V is 72k GBP the M5 is 73 GBP in England. That is ridiculous markup on Cadillacs behalf based on exchange rates. If you look at the M5 is actually discount in the US. In Australia, the M5 costs over $200k USD. They charge less cause they dont have import taxes here, but overseas GM is using exchange rates to turn a profit and increase markups instead of charging what should be a fair price. Cadillac still have quite a ways to go in quality before they are competing on the same level as the Germans. They are the only reason after all that Cadillac is making a car that isn't a complete POS. Do you remember the Caddys of a decade ago, they were land yachts with no sportiness or luxury anywhere. And slapping fake wood trim and leather in your car doesn't simply make you a luxury car manufacture. Also, looks are subjective, I don't know anyone who likes the looks of Cadillac.

@neanderthal, Just b/c MT tested a Taurus SHO the same color as this car, doesn't mean they look alike. Color aside, these two sedans could not look more different.Anyway I love the car. The performance and daily driving characteristics are obviously impressive. It comes as no shock to me that the F10 M5 would be an improvement over the E60. I just wish the article compared this to the E63 and CTS-V more so instead of the Panamera.And can we stop playing the value card with the CTS-V? We can find a piece of junk laying in a scrap metal yard, dump $25K into it, and it'll outperform all of these cars. Does that make it better? The extra $25K for thi car over a CTS-V is worth it to many. Just like many are willing to pay another $25K more than this car for a Panamera Turbo

@syj The primary objective of BMW was to turn the 5-series into a slightly scaled down 7-series with high levels of luxury. The primary objectives of the M division were to the improve efficiency while adding more power, maintain high levels of comfort and make sure it still handles at least as good as the old M5. And yes, in all that, they succeeded.I can't imagine anybody at BMW giving a damn over some pointless lap times, let alone trying to be competitive against the CTS-V in terms of value for money in the US (Technically, it's impossible for anyone exporting cars from Europe to be competitive in this regard these days.)

@Nine inch:People who actually know about the Ring times of the V and M5 already realized the M5 was faster. Congratulations to BMW- they had 4 years to top the V by 4 secs on a 13m track and they succeeded. For the price premium thats the least we should expect from this brand new car.

@gt-keith - when I buy a sports car, race track performance is a big deal to me. Considering that MT has the Z06 crushing the GT3 (let alone the Carrera) around Laguna Seca, I'd think that a lot of people would be very interested in the Z06.Having had experience with the M5's V8 as it has been used in the X5M and X6M, I'd still take the Caddy's LSA. Based upon some of the mechanical issues I've seen the BMW V8, the LSA will handle more power, more reliably and I do love to modify my cars....

"On a track, the V will eat this thing up alive. It increased its acceleration time but that's it. Gravity doesn't work in its favor."So far, that isn't the case. Even if we ignore the claimed Nordschleife time for the M5 (7:55), the times favor the M5 on the 3 tracks they've shared. Hockenheim Short 1:14.50(CTS-V) - 1:12.90(M5)Autozeitung test track 1:41.70(CTS-V) - 1:39.80(M5)Sachsenring 1:41.74(CTS-V) - 1:38.90(M5)The times are from different days but are all over 1.5 seconds per lap. The CTS-V will improve when it it updated but it is too soon to say that it wiil eat anything...other than dust. :)There are still AWD M5 rumors floating around and the M5 turbos are running less boost than the X5M/X6M (14.5 psi vs. 13.1 psi) so BMW could easily improve the M5 as well. None of them (BMW, Audi, M-B, Caddy, Jag, Porsche) have shown us their biggest gun, yet.

Tina_Dang: If a user name is your insult then you have a bigger problem darling. Plus, if you're going to insult someone then you may wanna know the difference between "on" and "one"..No back to business. In now way am I bashing BMW.. I'm not biased toward region. My girl and I drive a Infiniti G37XS, 11 Mustang GT and BMW X5M.. My argument is the price to performance. The last I checked, the CTS-V came into the Germans back yard and recorded some awesome numbers for a production sedan. The new M5 is impressive but IMO still falls short of amazing. On a track, the V will eat this thing up alive. It increased its acceleration time but that's it. Gravity doesn't work in its favor.Oh yea, Im gonna change my name to Tina_Dang got_banged_by_the_$$

@GT keith: The Z06 isnt slower than the 911 carrera. Both do 0-60 in about 3.6 to 3.8 secs. In addition, the base price on the Z06 isnt $105k. Its more like $76k. A loaded Z06 with the optional centennial package (cosmetics) is $102k.

@platinol:In the year 2012 what "car guy" doesnt understand the difference between a 2 valve OHV engine and a 4 valve DOHC engine? The BMW has less displacement because its a DOHC V8 feed by two turbos. Of course it has 1.8L less displacement. No OHV engine can match the specific output of a modern 4 valve DOHC engine so OHV engines are larger. BMW and GM can decide to make power in whatever ways they see fit, all that matters is the end result. Someone else braggeda about the BMW having more hp- it has a whopping 4 more hp. Big deal. If Cadillac gets the upgrades passed on to ZL1 the CTS-V will make 580hp soon.

@bmwisawesome:First of all there is no way this car can hit 204mph. Thats BS. secondly, with the manual the CTS-V can hit 191mph, not 175. The Automatic limits the top speed for some reason. And honestly, no one cares since few owners will ever have the space to actually hit top speed. I would think the M5 could hit 190-195mph. @GT-keith:Join us in reality, in terms of performance this car offers about 2% more than the CTS-V and to many the Cadillac looks better. The CTS-V is 4 years old and lacks some of the tech found on this car. When the next gen car comes out expect it to have all the latest features, better fuel economy and a higher price. And really the price of the current CTS-V isnt far off what the M5 USED to cost back in the early to mid 2000s. The BMW just keeps getting more expensive and now the price gap is huge between the two cars. Besides, its not like BMW will sell a lot of these, its a pricey limited volume super sedan.

@Church123, that's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but the fact is that this is a better car, price notwithstanding. The CTS-V doesn't cost nearly as much because GM can't charge as much, not because they're doing some kind of service to us. This goes for the Corvette versus the 911 Carrera as well.Furthermore, GM has no problem making you pay for performance. Look at the $105,000 Z06... No one in their right mind would purchase that over a faster 911 Carrera.

Did some idiot just call the CTS-V a fat car in comparison to the M5? Last I checked a CTS-V was in the 4200 lbs range, and this new M5? 4384. Sounds like someone has a case of fat _head_.Look, the M5 is a very nice car. But while it has more performance than the E60, it has clearly given up something with the move to turbocharging. The paragraph detailing the throttle response was perhaps one of the most disappointing series of words anyone who has driven an E60, or even an E39 M5, could hear.Kudos to anyone who can afford and chooses to buy a new M5. But for me? I prefer the CTS-V. Caddy has chosen to offer the kind of choices an enthusiast wants to have. Manual transmission, Sedan/Wagon/Coupe bodystyles, MR suspension, etc. I appreciate that. Add the fact that the LSA engine and the 6AT transmission have been proven over and over to be bulletproof at 700+ hp and its no contest. I still think the CTS-V is the best car GM builds and is worthy of praise on any continent

Okay the reason the m5 is so expensive is beacuse it has a way higher top speed than the Cadillac CTS-V. Who would even care if the v was faster, the whole point to the M5 is to be fast fun and comfortable. The V according to amercan top gear only does 175 and the e60 m5 did 204 according to british top gear when it was unlimited. So the new m5 is more powerful and has better areodynamics so it is faster, so score for BMW no matter what.

@gmoney82 Umm sweetie, your username immediately discredits your opinions. Don't comment anymore from now one darling. @ syjThe fat and fugly Cadillac's ONLY winning approach is that it is cheaper than the Germans. If the E63 and M5 were more affordable, it would be game over for the CTS-V. Point blank period. Case closed. You deserve no more comment space.

I made a misprint on the mile/times for what the next cts. I should of said 11.5 if GM gave it 600hp. Thats the only way the cts is going to up the M5. The M5 might be underrated so it might be pushing 570hp. The chevy LT1 uses a stick. If it would of used a automatic it will be 3.7 to 3.8 0-60 times.

Dang Tina get off the germans nuts.. Just give up.. I mean if i-Drive is all that's needed, then I'm sure Caddy can come up with something..Bottom line, this "NEWER" M5 can barely beat an outdated CTS-V.. So take that prestige, precision and cachet and suck it, you joke..$$

I sometimes wonder if Tina is serious or if he is just pretending to be so over the top in order to emulate domestic haters. Its hard to tell. Obviously the new M5 is the first sedan in this size/power class from Europe since the CTS-V that can actually beat it on a track. And it can probably barely beat it. CTS-V is about more than value, its a legit performance sedan that just happens to be much cheaper than its European rivals. The problem with the Euro cars is that they dont have much of the performance hardware standard.

Sorry, Tina but what your domestic hatin' fails to acknowledge is that the Cadillac CTS-V offers performance BEYOND its' price, as opposed to the Germans, who make some terrific cars, but who also make terrific price tags!! I'd love to some day own a first generation M5, but have less desire as these cars have become more and more about amenities instead of offering a direct connection between the driver and machine.

This car is brilliant, BMW build some terrific machines. BMW, Mercedes-Benz, and Audi all day. It's funny though how Cadillac's only model that competes with the Germans is the CTS/CTS-V and then it is the "value" pic in it's segments. The only advantage it offers is that it is cheaper than the Germans (which have the prestige, precision, and cachet to charge 6 figures. what a joke.

2saigon:GTR and CTS-V have nothing in common so lumping them together makes no sense. CTS-V is similar to M5, GTR isnt at all. Personally, I get the point of the M5. They managed to deliver a car that slightly outguns the CTS-V for $30k more. Its pretty simple. Both cars are fast, both could be credible road trip cars, both have tons of luxury features. The GTR is a two seater that beats up occupants over anything but smooth pavement, its not a road trip car, it has no backseat and its AWD.

@Dhan219- Where did you get that 1/4 time? My mustang GT can get a faster 1/4 than that.It seems that BMW aimed at the current models(MB/CTS-V) instead of projecting the upgrades those cars may get. It's impressive numbers for BMW but they barely beat a powertrain that's been out for 4 years. So, good win for now. Then last place they go again...$$

@bmforever: Please, same old excuse Euro car fanboys use everytime they want to dismiss an American performance car. CTS-V has a better warranty than the BMW. So after looking up some tests with the competition I found that CTS-V has done figure 9 between 25 secs and 25.2 secs and E63 did it in 24.8secs with the OLD engine. They havent tested the E63 sedan with the new engine yet. Those cars cant match the qtr mile time of the M5 but trap speeds are close with CTS-V being around 118mph in its best performances. C&D has recorded a 119mph trap with the automatic. You can basically attribute the difference to the superior 8 speed auto in the M5.

Very little mention of curb weight. It wouldve been nice to reference figure 8 times of cars like CTS-V and E63 for comparison. Instead we have to look it up ourselves. @dhan: The current CTS-V auto is only a little slower than this car for $30k less. I think it looks better as well. I think the M5 is about 4 secs faster on the Ring than the CTS-V, not a huge advantage for a car that is 4 years newer and $30k more.